Concord Associates, L.P. v. Entertainment Properties Trust
817 F.3d 46
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs seek to develop a Catskills casino-resort and racino complex defendanted by Eagle, Empire, Genting, and Kien Huat-related entities.
- Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to obstruct development by controlling Catskills gaming and racing opportunities.
- Plaintiffs defined a geographic market as roughly 100 miles from Thompson, NY with 18–20 million people, centering on NY Metro.
- District Court dismissed Sherman Act claims for lack of a plausible market definition and connection to alleged agreement.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration; district court denied; on appeal, district court’s market-definition ruling is reviewed de novo.
- Court addresses whether the market definition is plausible and whether amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed Catskills market is a plausible antitrust geographic market | Concord argues Catskills is a distinct market with NY Metro catchment. | Defendants contend the Catskills market is not plausible or interchangeable with nearby markets. | Market not plausibly defined; dismiss |
| Whether the product market and evidence show antitrust violation | Plaintiffs contend products and services are interdependent in a racino market. | Defendants argue no plausible market definition defeats antitrust claims. | Public market definition fails; claims dismissed |
| Whether leave to amend would be futile | Proposed second amended complaint redefines catskills markets to cure pleading defects. | Amendment would be futile as markets remain implausible. | Futile to amend; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility requirement for antitrust claims)
- Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (Supreme Court 1985) (destination market concept in antitrust)
- Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court 1961) (economic market boundaries in antitrust analysis)
- Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court 1965) (requires market definition to assess anti-competitive effects)
- Capital Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc., 996 F.2d 537 (2d Cir. 1993) (antitrust market definition and pleading standards)